From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: storm@cua.dk (Kim F. Storm) Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: abstracting Lisp strings - macro name convention? Date: 03 Jul 2002 16:06:16 +0200 Sender: emacs-devel-admin@gnu.org Message-ID: <5xfzz0c3dz.fsf@kfs2.cua.dk> References: <200207020737.g627bR501067@aztec.santafe.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: localhost.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: main.gmane.org 1025701588 20236 127.0.0.1 (3 Jul 2002 13:06:28 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@main.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 3 Jul 2002 13:06:28 +0000 (UTC) Cc: rms@gnu.org, emacs-devel@gnu.org Return-path: Original-Received: from quimby.gnus.org ([80.91.224.244]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1 (Debian)) id 17Pjq0-0005GH-00 for ; Wed, 03 Jul 2002 15:06:28 +0200 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([199.232.76.164]) by quimby.gnus.org with esmtp (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian)) id 17PjvW-0001JP-00 for ; Wed, 03 Jul 2002 15:12:10 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=fencepost.gnu.org) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 3.34 #1 (Debian)) id 17PjqN-0003IF-00; Wed, 03 Jul 2002 09:06:51 -0400 Original-Received: from mail.filanet.dk ([195.215.206.179]) by fencepost.gnu.org with smtp (Exim 3.34 #1 (Debian)) id 17PjpF-0003CG-00; Wed, 03 Jul 2002 09:05:41 -0400 Original-Received: from kfs2.cua.dk.cua.dk (kfs2.local.filanet.dk [192.168.1.182]) by mail.filanet.dk (Postfix) with SMTP id 686797C016; Wed, 3 Jul 2002 13:05:38 +0000 (GMT) Original-To: Ken Raeburn In-Reply-To: Original-Lines: 28 User-Agent: Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.3.50 Errors-To: emacs-devel-admin@gnu.org X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.11 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: Emacs development discussions. List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Xref: main.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:5400 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.devel:5400 Ken Raeburn writes: > STRING_REF(obj,index) > STRING_SET(obj,index,newbyteval) Wouldn't it be more consistent to name these STRING_AREF(obj,index) STRING_ASET(obj,index,newbyteval) > > With a pervasive change like this, do you really want separate > checkins for each file and detailed function-level change log and CVS > log entries for everything affected? It's tedious, but doable; I'm > just unclear on how important you feel that level of detail is for > pervasive changes of such a simple nature. Occasionally other changes > have been checked in with log entries like "all callers changed"; most > (but not all) of them are for static functions, so it's still > describing changes confined to the one file. For this case, I think it is acceptable (preferable IMO) to just list the files where you make the changes, i.e. something like * file.c, file2.c, file3.c * file4.c, file5.c: Use new STRING_ macros. -- Kim F. Storm http://www.cua.dk